| Revision as of 01:33, 26 May 2019 editKhakePakeVatan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users699 edits →BE sourcing← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,575 edits →Merge proposal: Potential superpower: Closing; no merge |
| (144 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=mid|pol=yes|hist=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}} |
|
|
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie","appear":{"revid":490700302,"parentid":485790865,"timestamp":"2012-05-04T21:53:51Z","replaced_anchors":{"Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1160717353,"parentid":1160716083,"timestamp":"2023-06-18T09:43:15Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=7 June 2024|destination=Superpower (politics)|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1229440734#Requested move 7 June 2024}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<!--Talk page begins here--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== British Empire in Teal == |
|
|
|
|
|
The map showing the British Empire in teal is misleading, for instance, only part of Canada is coloured teal, none of Australia, but all of New Zealand. In fact, all should be entirely coloured teal as they all have the QEII as head of state. It looks as if this map is designed to minimise British influence. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your arguments are similarly expressed by others in the talk page of the map in ]. I rather hoped that the map's talk page would have an explanation, I'm sure there is one myself mind you. --] - ] 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] responded over at the image talk page, seems adequate. The argument being that the ] gave Dominions independence. Seems reasonable to me.--] - ] 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== US was the only superpower == |
|
|
|
|
|
The United States was the only superpower in the 20th century. The UK and the USSR were never on the same level. (] (]) 14:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What? Pre-WW2, the US wouldn't be considered any more powerful then France, Germany or Japan. Pre-WW1, arguable the UK was the sole superpower. ] (]) 15:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The US was clearly the industrial superpower in the first half of the 20th century, and arguably the economic superpower as well. The UK, USSR, France, Germany and Japan were never superpowers. Only the US - and now China - are actual superpowers. (] (]) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Personally I find reasonable that the USSR was a superpower in facts like that USSR was the first to put a man in space, to launch satellites, to invent cellphones. And that the US and the USSR divided the world about evenly from 1945 to 1989. |
|
|
:::But hey, if you can find a reliable source that says that the US was the only superpower, maybe that could get included in the article. Search Google scholar! |
|
|
:::--] - ] 03:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you solely consider industrial power then China has been a superpower for a long time. That is certainly not the sole criteria for a superpower. The US was considered a superpower only after its militarisation up to and throughout WW2, and its alliances thereafter. Before this the US might have been economically powerful, but it was extremely non-interventionist. It didn't not join the League of Nations, it did nothing to counter the expansion of the Japanese Empire, took no stance during the Spanish Civil War, and it stayed neutral for much of WW2. To say the US—an isolationist country at the time—was more influential then Japan, the USSR, Britain, or France, which each had very an active role in international affairs, is preposterous. ] (]) 12:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The US sided with France and the British Empire from the very beginning of World War II, just as it had in World War I. Even the Neutrality Patrol, despite its name, was massively biased in favour of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede needs to be changed == |
|
|
|
|
|
China is clearly a superpower now, and the opinion of a dictator like Putin isn't reliable. (] (]) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Putin's quote in 2016 is reliable. China hasn't done anything differently than it did a year ago. ] (]) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::China has been a superpower for years now. Economically, industrially and militarily. (] (]) 13:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The IP is right. The Russian President may be considered a reputable source on the topic of geopolitics (though that is disputable), but he is certainly not impartial. Giving his view prominence like that is a breach of WP:NPOV. The statement "according to <s>Russian President Putin and</s> other sources, this has remained unchanged." is actually uncited. No source claims that no other source considers China a superpower. Rather it is that the editors of this article simply haven't found any sources claiming this to be the case. Editors of this article need to learn what Misplaced Pages is about. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Only a minority of sources claim China to be a super power. So we should proportionately represent this view and provide counter arguments as to why it is a minority view. Not pretend this view doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::China is the world superpower now. Putin's view is irrelevant as he has never won a free election. He has his own reasons for claiming the US as the only superpower, because China could easily bankrupt Russia at any moment. (] (]) 15:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Your POV is also irreverent. Find some sources, please. ] (]) 16:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::There are thousands of sources online describing China as the world superpower. (] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::There are also thousands of sources online claiming evidence for aliens or magic. We need named, specific, and reliable sources. And it is up to those suggesting inclusion of new contents to provide these. Without such sources we cannot even begin considering inclusion of new information. ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::China has the largest and most powerful army in the world. So of course it's a superpower. (] (]) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::::Provide a source plesase. ] (]) 19:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::There are multiple sources saying China and Russia are both superpowers: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/07/china-russia-superpower-axis (] (]) 19:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::::::Did you even read that article? The only time superpower is mentioned is, is in the heading, and even there accompanied by a question mark. Please do your homework before just dumping something in this discussion. ] (]) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Here is a source from 2011: http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/13/china-seen-overtaking-us-as-global-superpower/ (] (]) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Which is about an opinion poll among non-expert citizens and does not list any factcheck. ] (]) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Who is an expert on the definition of a superpower? At the very least the lede needs to mention that China is widely seen as a superpower/emerging superpower in the early 21st century. (] (]) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Tell me who an expert is, and define widely seen please. ] (]) 18:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I'll use some plain Texan talk here, a lot of people are stupid, and as such "widely believed" by non-academics isn't reliable, in fact I think that would fall under ]. China is a great power, there is no doubt, but they have several crippling weakenesses that place them solidly in the "not-superpower" category. I will compare them to what experts call the sole superpower, or even hyperpower, America. You mention industry, that one may be true. Economically is a solid no, while they make propaganda about their solid lack of private debt, that's pretty easy when you are communist, take a look at public debt sometime. Military, don't make me laugh, their military isn't the weakest of anyone, but it would only meet great power at a maximum. It is a pretty well established fact that America could wipe the floor with China. ] ] ] 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::The United States was defeated by China in the Korean War and that was long before China had thousands of nuclear weapons. China owns so much US debt that it could easily bankrupt the US economy at any time. There were reports on the BBC today about China surpassing the US, and how they would destroy the American economy if Trump started a trade war. (] (]) 20:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::1. They were pushed back but rapidly repelled the chinese, before it stalemated. 2. China still doesn't own thousands of nukes, it only has about 260. 3. That's entirely wrong, China has been rapidly selling off holdings of US debt, as of recently Japan owns more than them. 4. The thing about them destroying the economy is that it would require America to agree to pay its debt. I am 100% certain that Trump would tell China to procreate with itself, therefore doing little damage to the economy, and making China's hold of the debt politically worthless. ] ] ] 21:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::China also defeated America in the Vietnam War. You are just in denial - China is the world economic and industrial superpower with a vast modern military, and the US is rapidly heading for its "Suez Crisis" moment. The election of Trump just speeded up the inevitable. (] (]) 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|:::::::::::::::::::}} |
|
|
This is just ]. Cool. It's more likely that when America has its "'Suez Crisis' moment", there will be no more superpowers. World has become far too multipolar. The great powers can't just throw their weight around like they use to. As China grows, so are many other emerging economies. It still a few years before China's GDP surpasses the US or EU's. Also its growth rate is slowing down. Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss. ] (]) 22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:China surpassed the declining EU years ago. The EU is breaking up and won't exist in a few years. (] (]) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
::Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss. ] (]) 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The United States were never defeated by China in a war, especially not in the Vietnam or Korean War. The Korean War doesn't have a winner or loser since the conflict is still going on. ] (]) 08:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree with ] and others: "Get reliable academic sources, then we can discuss."--] (]) 09:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::China was vital in helping Vietnam defeat the illegal US invasion. The US lost the Korean War when MacArthur was fired. (] (]) 17:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Map inaccuracies == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 1945 world map has several bits that seem to be the wrong colour. New Zealand is shown as fully part of the British Empire, unlike Australia, Cananda or South Africa, while the effective British control of Egypt and Soviet control of central Europe are not shown. Any thoughts on this? — ]] 14:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am not sure what either of the two maps brings to the article, as shown by the United States territory has nothing to do with being a superpower. ] (]) 14:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I just uploaded an edited version to Commons, with central Europe, Mongolia and northern Iran assigned to the Soviets, Greece, Egypt and southern Iran assigned to the Brits, Iceland assigned to the Americans, and New Zealand independent. Though actually, I think you're right. There are too many nuances for a map to ever be very accurate, and it could only ever be a snapshot at most. No objection if you change my changes back, or get rid of the map from this page altogether. — ]] 14:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The third Reich? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the third Reich a superpower at it's time? Same question for the Japanese Empire?! ] (]) 22:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abe.etailer.dpsl.net/Home/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536885601 |
|
|
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204011005/http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf to http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel. |
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: |
|
== Should ] be merged here? == |
|
|
|
https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report. |
|
Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unilateral edition == |
|
In my opinion, no. Because not all Superpowers wanted to have global hegemony and snooped around in every nation's affairs, of course they liked power but many also had certain morals which limited them from doing things like this. E.g. Cyrus the Great advocated for the self-ruling of non-Iranian peoples, which were the majority of people he conquered, and encouraged them to be more active in their affairs. It also seems like a relatively new idea which began with the actions of the British Empire and continues today with the USA. ] (]) 01:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge proposal: Potential superpower == |
|
== BE sourcing == |
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be ]. ] (]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page ] could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Support.''' There's no reason to have two separate articles on basically the same subject. It dilutes editor efforts and results in lower quality articles. ] (]) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' - Unless you're also suggesting large-scales reductions in detail the merged article is likely to be too long to be easily navigable. ] (]) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment'''- If the merge is accepted, I would encourage any editor to help boil down the merged section to remove redundant information and keep the page navigable. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Vastly different topics. ] (]) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:*'''Support''', Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. ] may have to do with this. |
|
I think we need to discuss the weighting and viability of sources used for including the ] in this article. This is causing problems elsewhere. Only one author (Fox) - a contemporary commentator, not a historian - is actually cited as treating the British Empire as a super power; all the other sources used (few that there are) refer back to him. No doubt there are others, but without evidence it does not seem right to present this as historical consensus, especially as it is contentious. The weighting here should be adjusted to reflect weighting in reliable sources. The article should also include caveats like, for example, that the term was only applicable to the BE was a brief period after it was coined. ] (]) 10:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' - It does not appear to me that ''potential superpower'' is recognized by sources a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article. ] (]) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose'''- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. ] (]) 23:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:*'''Comment''' per arguments listed above, do you have sources that assert this is a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article? |
|
|
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. Not because they are vastly different topics (yes, they are different concepts, but they are not that different so that they couldn't be merged), but because the "Potential superpower" article is so detailed and long and contains so many references that it would either bloat the other article or lose a lot of depth; I don't think it could be shortened to an adequate length where it could be merged without losing much background information. Also, the article is very likely to become even larger in the future, e.g., when other countries become candidates for potential superpowers or countries lose their status as a potential superpower and would therefore be moved into the "Former candidates" section and commonly cited reasons for their downfall would be given. ] (]) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The British Empire was without a doubt a Superpower in it's time. It controlled 25% of the world's landmass, a feat which no other of the great superpowers of the past have been able to accomplish, although this can be attributed to technological advancement over time, it is without a doubt that Britain had a superior economy and naval fleet. There should be reliable sources cited but it's without a doubt British Empire was a superpower. ] (]) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] arguments are lacking in detail. |
|
|
:] is 1500 words and ] 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation. |
|
|
:Size split argument could go either way I think. I don't think what will or won't be a superpower will change so quickly that we should anticipate a significant expansion in either article. Imo what should be the deciding factor is how distinct of topics they are. ] (]) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::When I wrote that merging the article would "bloat the other article", I was not referring to the total length; I rather meant that the merged content, when keeping the detailed descriptions, would make up a disproportionately large part of the article, thus already justifying its own article for better clarity, even considering that they are not vastly different topics. As for my argument that the "Potential superpower" article will become larger in the future, I can already see reliable sources coming up in the next few months or years with the idea that Russia is not a potential superpower anymore, which would mean we'd have to put it in the former candidates section, along with Japan, and add commonly cited reasons for why Russia is usually not seen as a potential superpower anymore or why its status is at least contested by academics. If we merged the article, that would mean that this article would cover three topics: The history of superpowers, potential superpowers, and former potential superpowers (including countries whose status as a potential superpower is heavily debated, such as perhaps Russia or even Brazil in the future). I don't think that's a concise solution. ] (]) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion top}} |
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be.
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page Potential superpower could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. GeogSage 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
